The Prevention, Identification, and Cognitive Determinants of Math Difficulty
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Compton, Donald L.; Fuchs, Douglas; Paulsen, Kimberly; Bryant, Joan D.; Hamlett, Carol L. (2005). Journal of Educational Psychology, v97 n3 p493-513 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ734286
-
examining127Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Calculation |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.34 |
6.71 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed first-grade concepts/applications |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.12 |
17.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.16 |
22.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed CBM computation-grade 1 |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.40 |
12.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-developed whole numbers computation |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.50 |
5.22 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed subtraction fact fluency |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.14 |
2.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed story problems |
Preventative math tutoring—Fuchs et al. 2005 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.84 |
3.33 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 50% Other or unknown 5% White 45% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 54% Other or unknown 46%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in 41 first-grade classrooms in 10 schools (6 Title I and 4 non-Title I) of a large, southeastern metropolitan school district of the United States. The math tutoring intervention was administered in small groups outside of regular math instruction to students at-risk (AR) for the development of mathematics difficulty that were randomly assigned to receiving the intervention.
Study sample
The analytic sample is 50 percent male, 50 percent African American, 45 percent White, and 6 percent Hispanic. Roughly 54 percent of the student in the analytic sample qualified for subsidized lunch.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition involved the implementation of small-group math tutoring to AR math students outside of regular math instruction. Tutors worked with groups of two or three AR students that had been randomly assigned to the intervention group. Tutoring sessions occurred three times a week for 16 weeks. Each session lasted approximately 40 minutes. The first 30 minutes were used for small-group tutoring. The tutoring lessons followed the curriculum of regular math instruction. During the final 10 minutes, students individually used math software called Math Flash.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was "business as usual". Specifically, the AR math students randomly assigned to the comparison condition received regular math instruction alongside the AR math students randomly assigned to the intervention group. However, the AR math students in the comparison group did not participated in the small-group math tutoring intervention as a supplement to each participating classroom's regular math instruction.
Support for implementation
Tutors participated in three training sessions. The first was a day training session providing an overview of the tutoring program during which tutoring goals, topics, and activities were presented. Tutors then practiced the activities with a partner. In a second session a week later, tutors learned how to use Math Flash after which a review session was held. Tutoring began one week after the review session.
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2009
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
Race Black 50% White 45% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).